Football League Standings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds the data fields and league examples but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, two sentences front-loading the core function and listing supported leagues, with no superfluous content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given simple parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and provides useful league examples. It misses mentioning that the season parameter defaults to current, but this is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds concrete league ID examples (e.g., 39 for Premier League), enhancing parameter understanding beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns league standings with specific fields (rank, points, wins, etc.) and lists major league IDs, differentiating it from sibling tools like sports.football.fixtures or sports.football.leagues.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for getting standings for a given league and season but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.